UC-NRLF 


y   1D1   Ofifi 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


From  the  Papers  of 

DALE  MORGAN 


Hollinger  Corp. 
pH  8.5 


CORRESPONDENCE 


between 


Senator  Reed  Smoot 


and 


N.  V.  Jones 


Including  a  Discussion 
&     -pt)   of  the  Senator's  Record  in  the 

\  at. 

United  States  Senate 


1ALT  LAKE  CITY, 


.  have  resulted  in  the 
the  whole  meets  with 
.e  your  valuable  assist- 


• 


CORRESPONDENCE 

between 

SENATOR  REED  SMOOT 

and 

N.  V.  JONES 


Including  a  Discussion  of  the  Senator's  Record 
in  the  United  States  Senate 


SALT  LAKE  OfTY,  1914 


Washington,  D.  C,  September  7th,  1914. 
Mr.  N.  V.  Jones, 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
My  Dear  Sir: 

At  the  Republican  State  Convention  held  at  Salt  Lake  City  on 
September  1st,  1914,  I  was  nominated  for  re-election  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  During  the  time  that  you  have  honored  me  as  one  of 
your  representatives  in  the  upper  house  of  Congress,  I  have  given  my 
best  efforts  to  the  interests  and  welfare  of  our  State  and  Nation.  No 
citizen  of  Utah,  irrespective  of  religion,  politics  or  social  position,  has 
ever  made,  a  request  of  me  which  has  not  received  my  prompt,  care- 
ful and  personal  attention. 

My  record  as  senior  senator  from  the  State  of  Utah  is  open  for 
all  to  read,  and  I  go  before  the  people  for  re-election  basing  my  claim 
upon  that  record.  If  my  work  has  not  brought  credit  and  honor  to 
our  State,  I  do  not  deserve  to  be  re-elected  as  your  representative  in 
the  Senate.  But  if,  in  your  opinion,  my  labors  have  resulted  in  the 
advancement  of  our  State  and  my  record  on  the  whole  meets  with 
your  approval,  then  I  shall  greatly  apjpreciate  your  valuable  assist- 
ance during  the  coming  campaign. 

3 


Assuring  you  that  I  am  ready  and  willing  at  all  times  to  serve 
you,  and  with  very  best  wishes,  I  remain, 

Yours  sincerely, 

(Signed)  REED  SMOOT. 


Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  October  2,  1914. 
Hon.  Reed  Smoot, 

United  States  Senate, 

AYashington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Sir : 

Your  note  of  the  7th  inst.,  addressed  to  me,  arrived  in  due.  course 
of  mail.  Like  most  other  citizens  I  am  intrested  in  the  political  wel- 
fare of  our  state,  and  as  a  consequence,  I  am  not  a  stranger  to  your 
record  in  the  senate.  Since  receiving  your  note,  and  from  the  fact  that 
you  have  referred  me  to  the  record,  and  that  you  base  your  claims 
for  support  and  re-election  upon  that  record,  I  have  for  my  own  satis- 
faction, and  further  information,  examined  your  record,  with  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  investigation  before  the  Senate  committee  and  the 
discussion  of  your  case  upon  the  floor  of  the  senate  in  1907.  After 
that  examination  of  the  record  I  feel  better  qualified  to  speak  in  rela- 
tion to  it. 

I  wish  here  and  now  to  state  that  although  I  did  not  support 
you  in  your  election  to  the  senate,  because  I  was  opposed  to  your  Re- 
publican principles,  yet  after  you  were  elected  to  the  senate,  I  stood 
firmly  and  patriotically  behind-  you,  and  gave  you  my  moral  support, 
for  the  reason  that  you  were  duly  elected  to  the  senate  by  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  state  of  Utah,  and  there  were  no  proper  or  legal  grounds 
justifying  either  your  exclusion  or  subsequent  expulsion  from  the 
senate.  To  that  extent  you  had  my  support  during  your  battle  to  re- 
tain your  seat,  as  fully  as  if  you  had  been  my  political  choice.  In  your 
note  you  say : 

"My  record  as  senior  senator  from  the  state  of  Utah,  is  open  for 
all  to  read,  and  I  go  before  the  people  for  re-election  basing  my  claims 
upon  that  record.  If  my  work  has  not  been  brought  credit  and  honor 
to  our  state,  I  do  not  deserve  to  be  re-elected  as  your  representative 
in  the  senate,  but  if,  in  your  opinion,  my  labors  have  resulted  in  the 
advancement  of  our  state  and  my  record  as  a  whole  meets  with  your 
approval,  then  I  shall  greatly  appreciate  your  valuable  assistance 
during  the  coming  campaign.  Assuring  you  that  I  am  ready  and  will- 
ing at  all  times  to  serve  you,  and  with  very  best  wishes  I  remain,'' 
etc. 

Your  appeal  to  me  to  support  you  for  re-election  to  the  senate  is 
a  direct  one,  and  as  frankly  stated  by  you  is  based  upon  your  record 
in  the  senate  during  your  incumbency.  I  shall  endeavor  to  answer 


you  in  the  same  spirit  of  directness  and  frankness.  I  trust  that  al- 
though we  may  differ  in  our  views  and  conceptions  of  governmental 
policies,  as  well  as  with  reference  to  some  other  things  in  your  offi- 
cial record,  which  to  me  are  inconsistent,  that  we  may  both  be  toler- 
ant of  each  other's  opposing  views^^ 

I  am  free  to  say  at  the  outset,  that  I  do  not  share  in  your  views 
or  attitude  in  relation  to  the  bill  relating  to  the  Panama  Canal  Toll 
Exemptions,  the  Currency  bill,  nor  the  tariff.  Xur  do  I  agree  with 
what  seems  to  be  your  reversible  attitude  on  the  Mexican  question. 
I  shall  not,  however,  at  this  time  enter  into  detail  of  my  reasons  for 
such  differences. 

My  deductions  and  comments  resulting  from  the  examination  of 
the  record  of  the  proceedings  had  in  your  case  before  the  senate  com- 
mittee on  privileges  and  elections.  I  have  reduced  to  writing.  I  here- 
with enclose  you  a  copy  of  the  article,  not  because  it  is  necessarily  a 
part  of  our  correspondence,  but  simply  as  a  frank  statement  of  my 
views  upon  the  record.  As  you  very  properly  suggest,  the  record  "is 
open  for  all  to  read"  "if  my  work  has  not  brought  credit  and 

honor  to  our  state  I  do  not  deserve  to  be  re-elected  as  your  repre- 
sentative in  the  senate/'  It  is  therefore  a  public  rcord  of  a  public  offi- 
cial, and  my  criticisms  of  the  record  are  not  of  a  private  character. 
( The  article  referred  to  covers  pages  1  to  23,  inclusive,  and  may  prop- 
erly be  considered  at  this  juncture.) 

I  shall  assume  that  you  will  read  and  reflect  somewhat  at  least 
upo  nthat  part  of  your  record  to  which  I  refer  in  the  enclosed  article, 
and  which  is  also  a  part  of  the  record  to  which  you  refer  me  and 
upon  which  you  base  your  claims  for  re-election,  and  ask  my  support. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  view  of  your  knowledge  of  our  people,  that 
you  ought  to  consider  and  look  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  sympathy 
upon  those,  who  are  of  the  old  school,  (from  a  church  standpoint ,  and 
consider  that  class  so  unmercifully  berated,  maligned,  misjudged,  slan- 
dered as  I  believe  by  your  advocates  upon  the  floor  of  the  senate,  viz. : 
by  Senators  Dillingham,  Hopkins,  Beveridge,  Foraker,  and  I  think 
some  others. 

Senator,  you  and  I  were  born,  reared,  and  still  are  members  of 
the  same  church.  I  indulge  the  belief  that  my  membership  entitles 
me  to  a  standing  equally  as  good  as  yours,  I  am  therefore  in  full  sym- 
pathy with  my  church  and  people,  and  am  jealous  of  their  honor  and 
good  name. 

Our  people  like  you  and  I  have  been  solemnly  taught  to 
respect  the  Ordinance  of  Plural  marriage,  (vulgarly  denominated  as 
•'polygamy"  in  our  penal  statutes)  into  which  our  parents  entered  as 
one  of  chastity  and  purity,  within  the  law  of  the  church.  That  they 
were  sincere  and  consistent  in  their  lives  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt.  Their  family  relations,  as  also  your  father's  house,  and  my 
father's  house,  are  built  upon  that  foundation.  During  the  many  years 
of  rigorous  legal  treatment  of  the  people  of  Utah,  prior  to  the  issu- 


ance  of  the  manifesto,  and  of  Utah's  admission  to  statehood,  these  peo- 
ple have  passed  through  rough  and  stormy  seas.  They  have  suffered 
prosecutions,  bonds,  privations,  and  imprisonment.  Some  of  them 
have  sacrificed  their  lives,  or  members  of  their  family,  in  consequence 
of  it.  These  people  cannot  properly  be  regarded  as  libertines,  moral 
lepers,  or  criminals  as  portrayed  by  your  advocates  upon  the  floor  of 
the.  senate.  They  have  not  violated  the  law  of  their  church,  under 
which  they  entered  into  that  relation.  They  have  lived  within  the 
law  of  the  church  and  of  their  covenants,  and  observed  the  moral  law 
as  scrupuously  as  any  other  living  person.  Their  good  name,  honor 
and  family  reputation  are  as  sacred  as  yours  or  any  other  person. 
You  cannot  consistently  believe  them  to  be  criminals,  nor  entitled  to 
the  brand  of  dishonor  sought  to  be  placed  upon  them,  by  those  gen- 
tlemen, who  appeared  as  your  advocates  in  the  senate. 

While  those  base  charges  were  made,  you  sat  silently  by  and 
acquiesced  in  them,  when  the  truth  and  good  conscience  should  have 
impelled  you  to  speak.  No  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  expected  you  to  en- 
dorse the  actions  of  those  people  in  their  marital  status,  if  you  were 
opposed  to  it,  but  you  knew  then  as  now  that  those  base  charges  made 
against  that  class  of  your  constituency  were  false. 

It  may  freely  be  admitted  that  in  years  past  some  of  our  people 
have  been  subject  to  the,  charge  of  a  violation  of  the  civil  law,  with 
reference  to  their  marital  status,  but  that  was  not  a  violation  of  the 
ecclesiastical  law  by  which  they  entered  into  that  relation.  They 
are.  justified  in  standing  unequivocally  upon  that  ground. 

Senator,  for  more  than  seven  years  last  past,  many  of  our  peo- 
ple have  smarted  under  the  brand  of  immortality,  moral  degradation, 
licentiousness,  and  illegitimacy,  which  in  your  presence,  and  by  your 
acquiescence  you  permitted  your  spokesmen  and  advocates  upon  the 
floor  of  the  senate  to  place  upon  the  brow  of  that  class  of  your  con- 
stituents; upon  my  father's  house  and  yours,  upon  my  mother  and 
upon  yours. 

So  far  as  my  parents  are  concerned  and  the  marriage  vows  into 
which  they  entered,  and  by  which  they  lived  consistently  and  sincerely, 
in  accordance  with  their  'faith,  and  from  their  viewpoint,  I  do  not  per- 
mit any  living  man  with  impunity,  in  my  presence,  to  arraign  their 
motives,  impeach  their  integrity,  or  challenge  their  honor. 

Your  record  upon  that  point,  is  doubtless  satisfactory  to  you,  be- 
cause you  point  to  it  with  seeming  pride.  It  is  not  satisfactory  to  me 
as  one  of  your  constituency,  and  I  here  and  now  enter  my  exception, 
and  record  my  solemn  protest. 

Senator,  I  now  ask  you  whether  you  can  consistently  expect  me, 
(or  the  class  aboved  referred  to),  to  support  you  for  re-election  in 
view  of  the  circumstances  and  the  record,  which  you  have  made  and 
to  which  you  refer  me? 

How  are.  you  going  to  answer  to  Mormon  Motherhood,  when  you 

6 


failed  to  defend  their  honor  and  good  name,  when  they  were  wantonly 
assailed? 

How  true  and  pertinent  to  this  issue  are  the  words  of  Shakes- 
peare : 

"Good  name  in  man  and  women,  dear  my  lord, 
Is  the  immediate  jewel  of  their  souls  ; 

Who  steals  my  purse  steals  trash;  't  is  something,  nothing; 
?T  was  mine,  't  is  his,  and  has  been  slave  to  thousands ; 
But  he  that  filches  from  me  my  good  name, 
Robs  me  of  that  which  not  enriches  him. 
And  makes  me  poor  indeed." 

Senator,  yoja  permitted  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
the  world  so  far  as  it  was  advised,  (by  your  silence  and  acquiescence) 
to  believe  as  stated  by  Senator  Hopkins,  that  you  "had  done  more  to 
stamp  out  this  foul  blot,  upon  the  civilization  of  Utah,  and  the  other 
territories,  where  polygamy  has  been  practiced,  than  any  thousand 
men  outside  of  the  church.'' 

Quaere : 

Was  that  statement  consistent  with  the  actual  truth? 

If  not,  why  did  you  not  deny  it? 

If  true,  was  it  consistent  with  your  profession  as  an  apostle,  pro- 
phet, seer  and  revelator,  in  the  church  to  which  you  belong? 

For  more  than  fifteen  years  you  have  been  sustained  by  the 
members  of  your  church  in  general  assembly,  with  uplifted  hands, 
and  before  the  world  as  a  prophet,  seer  and  revelator,  and  as  a  special 
witness  for  Christ,  and  the  divinity  of  the  doctrines  of  your  church. 

This  dual  record  is  of  your  own  making.  It  is  a  painful  dilemma. 
Painful  to  your  people,  and  when  measured  by  any  consistent  stand- 
ard of  honor,  should  be  equally  painful  to  you.  Candor  compels  me 
to  say  that  this  dilemma  has  two  horns.  The  first  is,  falsehood.  The 
second  is  hypocrisy.  The  only  logical  conclusion  is,  that  you  have 
impaled  yourself  upon  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  horns.  Possibly 
upon  both.  If  you  are  able  to  make  any  explanation  upon  that  point 
that  will  honorably  exculpate  you,  you  ought  to  get  busy  for  the  rec- 
ord is  certainly  against  you. 

The  last  part  of  this  letter  goes  only  to  the  question  of  your  in- 
consistency in  view  of  your  office  of  an  apostle,  and  as  a  special  wit- 
ness for  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  of  your  church ;  but  there  are  other 
important  questions  upon  which  we  differ,  and  which  would  neces- 
sarily have  to  be  overcome  before  I  could  support  you  for  re-election. 

I  observe  that  in  your  note  to  me  you  say :  "If  my  work  has  not 
brought  credit  and  honor  to  our  state,  I  do  not  deserve  to  be  re- 
elected  as  your  representative  in  the  senate." 

Now  senator,  I  have  always  supposed  that  "our  state,"  was  big- 
ger than  any  man,  and  that  the  honor  conferred  by  the  selection  of 

7 


a  man  to  represent  the  state  in  -the  United  States  senate,  was  a  dis- 
tinct honor  conferred  by  the  state  upon  the  individual. 

You  seem  to  assume  that  the  converse  of  that  proposition  is  the 
correct  one  in  your  case ;  or  in  other  words  that  your  standing  con- 
fers an  honor  upon  the  state,  rather  than  the  state  by  its  selection 
confers  an  honor  upon  you. 

It  might  seem  immodest  for  me  to  argue  my  view  of  that  propo- 
sition to  you,  and  so  I  desist. 

Senator,  I  just  now  recall  a  statement  accredited  to  you  by  mem- 
bers of  your  own  political  party,  that  you  stated  while  attending  a  cer- 
tain Republican  convention  in  Ogden,  Utah,  that  you  had  enough 
Democrats  in  cold  storage,  to  turn  the  election. 

I  recall  also  what  has  seemed  to  be  a  favorite  argument  of  your 
Republican  co-workers,  in  fact  it  was  recognized  as  a  "stock  in  trade" 
argument  in  Utah,  during  the  last  twelve  years  of  Republican  Na« 
tional  administration,  viz :  that  it  would  be  the  part  of  political  wis- 
dom, and  that  much  good  could  be  accomplished,  if  we  Democrats 
would  vote  for  the  Republican  congressmen,  presidential  electors,  and 
state  legislators,  who  would  elect  a  Republican  senator,  so  that  our 
state  might  be  in  harmony  with  the  National  administration. 

I  assume  that  you  and  your  party  take  a  similar  view  at  the 
present  time. 

Now  senator,  I  confess  that  that  argument  has  not  appealed 
strongly  to  me.  in  the  past,  but  it  sounds  good  to  me  now :  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  you  are  out  of  harmony  with  the  National  administra- 
tion at  Washington ;  that  you  have  been  and  are  strongly  opposed  to 
the  president's  Mexican  policy;  and  have  opposed  the  repeal  of  the 
Canal  Toll's  Exemption  Bill ;  and  opposed  the.  downward  revision  of 
the  tariff;  and  opposed  the  Currency  Bill;  and  for  the  further  reason 
that  you  have  been  selected  to  oppose  the  administration  measures ; 
and  are  out  of  harmony  generally  with  the  present  administration, 
consistency  suggests  that  for  the  good  of  the  service,  you  ought  to  re- 
sign, vacate  the  premises,  and  let  in  someone  who  is  in  harmony  with 
the  National  administration. 

Yours  for  consistency, 

N.  V.  JONES, 

Salt  Lake  City. 

A    DISCUSSION    OF   SENATOR    REED     SMOOT'S    RECORD 

FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  A  CHURCHMAN  AND 

OF  A  CITIZEN. 


Was  the  Defense  of  Senator  Reed  Smoot  Before  the  U.  S.  S.  Com- 
mittee On  Privileges  and  Elections  A  Concession  of  Principle? 

In  discussing  the  above  proposition,  it  may  seem  to  be  in  some 
respects   a  narrow   and  limited   view   which   the   writer  takes   of  his 

8 


subject  seeing  that  it  is  discussed,  first,  from  the  religious  viewpoint, 
and  from  the  standpoint  of  a  churchman.  It  must,  however,  in  all 
fairness  and  consistency,  be  remembered  that  the  main  portion  of  the 
constituency  of  the  Hon.  Senator  Smoot,  is  of  the  faith  and  church 
and  people  known  as  the  ''Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints." 

It  should  be  remembered  also  that  his  position  and  standing  as  a 
apostle  in  that  church  has  contributed  largely  to,  and  is  the  principle 
cause  of  his  selection  to  the  political  office,  which  he  now  holds.  This 
is  so  in  part  at  least,  because  the  experience  of  tjie  wiser  class  of  the 
people  of  Utah,  both  "Mormon"  and  "non-Mormon"  have  taught  them 
that  one  of  the  best  ways  to  deal  with  their  prejudice  and  established 
opinions  is  to  recognize  the  prejudices  and  opinions  of  both  classes. 
With  that  point  in  view,  selections  are  frequently  made  of  men  for 
political  offices  who  are  representatives  of  either  of  the  two  classes. 

It  is  intended  in  this  article  to  present  what  seems  to  be  some, 
only,  of  the  more  important  features  of  the  Smoot  investigation,  from 
the  viewpoint  of  a  Churchman,  and  points  not  heretofore  discussed 
by  the  press  or  people  to  any  extent.  It  is  intended  also  to  briefly 
discuss  the.  Senator's  attitude  and  record  in  said  investigation  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  "non-churchman"  or  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

As  Viewed  From  the  Standpoint  of  a  Churchman. 

The  position  which  Senator  Smoot  assumed  in  his  defense  before 
the  Senate  Committee  has  been  objectionable  to  very  many  of  his 
church  constituents  and  a  subject  of  honest  criticism  by  them;  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  he  has  been  upheld  and  lauded  profusely 
by  prominent  leading  churchmen. 

It  is  proposed  briefly  to  consider  the  theory  and  groundwork  of 
the  Senator's  alleged  defense  before  the  Senate  Committee  referred 
to,  from  the  record  in  the  case. 

The  record,  as  far  as  the  defense  is  concerned,  was  made,  shaped, 
and  presented  to  the  Senate  Committee  and  to  the  world  by  the  Sen- 
ator himself,  through  his  counsel,  who,  of  course,  were  subject  to  his 
direction.  We  shall  first  look  to  the  record  and  consider  it  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  churchman. 

In  the  month  of  January,  A.  D.  1903,  Senator  Smoot,  was  chosen, 
by  the  Legislative  Assembly,  to  the  office  of  Senator,  of  the  United 
States.  A  protest  was  filed  by  the  Reverend  Mr.  Paden,  and  seven- 
teen others,  in  the  Senate,  protesting  against  Mr.  Smoot  being  per- 
mitted to  occupy  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  upon  the  grounds  set  out  in 
the  protest. 

An  investigation  was  had,  before  the  Committee  on  Privileges 
and  Elections,  which  was  not  closed  uniil  in  the  early  part  of  the 
year  A.  D.  1907.  More  than  seven  years  have  elapsed  since  the  in- 
vestigation closed,  and  we  may  be  able  after  that  lapse  of  time  to  look 


back  upon  the  record,  and  discuss  it  temperately  and  in  the  light  of 
reason  and  judge  it  without  political  heat  or  religious  excitement. 

As  before  stated,  Senator  Smoot  was  at  that  time  and  still  is, 
holding  the  office  of  an  apostle  in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints,  and  at  all  times  sustained  before,  the  church  in  general 
assembly,  as  a  prophet,  seer  and  revelator,  in  connection  with  other 
members  of  his  quorum. 

It  follows  logically  and  conclusively  therefore,  that  the  duties 
of  the  high  office,  of  his  apostleship  should  be  esteemed  with  that 
sacredness  which  any  conscientious  man  must  naturally  feel  in  re- 
cepting  so  high  and  sacred  a  trust.  Principal  among  the  duties  of 
his  ecclesiastical  office,  is  the  duty  to  expound,  preah,  teach,  and  main- 
tain before  the  world  the.  divinity  of  the  work  in  which  the  apostle  is 
engaged  and  to  maintain  the  righteousness  and  purity  of  its  prin- 
ciples. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  at  the  threshold  of  this  discussion, 
that  there  is  no  intention  to  make  or  present  an  argument  at  this 
time  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  "plural  marriage,"  which  under  the 
civil  law,  is  described  as  "polygamy."  It  is  contended,  however,  and 
the  theory  upon  which  this  criticism  of  the.  record  is  made,  is,  that 
the  religious  opinions  and  convictions  of  the  individual  citizen  are 
above  legislation.  That  they  are  higher  than  the  law,  and  as  such, 
the  religious  views  and  opinions  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States 
may  not  be  invaded  by  legislative  enactment. 

RELIGIOUS    TEST    FORBIDDEN    BY    CONSTITUTION    OF 

UNITED  STATES. 

Congress  has  no  power  to  make  any  religious  test  of  the  opinion 
of  any  man,  with  reference  to  his  right,  or  qualification  to  hold  any 
office,  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States  government. 

See  Art.  VI  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

"Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  re- 
ligion, or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or  abridging  the  free- 
dom of  speech,  or  of  the  press,"  etc. 

Art.  1  of  Amendments  to  Constitution  of  United  States. 

The.  above  provisions  from  the  Federal  Constitution  carry  with 
them  the  plenary  rights  of  freedom  of  conscience,  of  religious  con- 
viction, of  freedom  of  speech,  and  of  the  press,  to  the  extent  of  one's 
religious  opinions  and  convictions.  These,  rights  are  more  than  mere 
matters  of  privilege !  they  are  guaranteed  by  the  organic  law  of  the 
nation. 

Religious  opinions  and  doctrines,  as  such,  are  not  objectionable 
nor  within  the  pale  of  legal  condemnation.  It  is  only  in  cases  where 
some  positive  overt  act  is  done,  which  is  forbidden  by  statute,  that 

10 


any  persons  may  be  condemned  by  law.  i'he  intention  must  coincide 
with  the  overt  act  in  order  to  constitute  an  offense.  It  follows  then 
conclusively,  that  all  evidence  introduced  by  Senator  Smoot,  with 
reference,  to  his  religious  opinions  and  views  in  regard  to  polygamy, 
were  entirely  voluntary  and  unnecessary. 

THE  PADEN  PROTEST  AND  SENATOR  SMOOT'S  ANSWER. 

At  page  25,  Vol.  1  of  the  Record  in  the  Smoot  Investigation,  the 
protestants  against  the  right  of  the  Senator  to  take  his  seat  said: 
"We  wage  no  war  against  his  religious  belief,  as  such.  We  do  not,  to 
the  slightest  extent  deny  him  the  same  freedom  of  thought,  the.  same 
freedom  of  action  within  the  law,  which  we  claim  for  ourselves.  We 
accuse  him  of  no  offense  cognizable  by  law.  nor  do  we  ask  to  put  him 
in  jeopardy  of  his  property  or  his  liberty.  We  ask  that  he  be  deprived 
of  no  natural  right,  nor  of  any  right  which,  under  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  the  land,  he  is  fitted  to  exercise." 

It  would  not  be  true  to  say  that  the  protestants  at  all  times  in  the 
investigation  stood  by  the  above  declaration,  but  it  is  true,  that  Sen- 
aaor  Smoot,  at  all  times  had  a  right  to  hold  the  protestants  to  their 
declaration,  and  properly  to  limit  at  least,  his  own  evidence,  to  those 
questions  and  matters  which  were  the  proper  subject  of  the  investi- 
gation. 

Time  and  space  will  not  permit  that  an  investigation  which  cov- 
ered so  many  months  and  filled  so  many  volumes,  may  be  properly  or 
fully  discussed  in  the  short  limits  of  one  article. 

Attention  is  here  called  to  the  answer  of  the  Hon.  Senator  Smoot 
to  the  protest  of  Mr.  Paden  and  seventeen  others. 

In  the  answer  the  Senator  moved  to  "strike  out  and  eliminate 
irom  said  protest  each  and  every  matter  and  thing  therein  contained, 
except  the  two  charges  above  mentioned."  The  charges  referred  to 
were,  first,  that  the  Senator  was  a  polygamist,  and  second,  that  he  was 
bound  by  some  oath  or  obligation  inconsistent  with  the  oath  required 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Notwithstanding  the  statements  of  the  protest  and  answer,  the 
Senator  then  proceeded  to  answer,  and  did  answer  the  other  charges 
made  by  the  protestants,  and  in  conclusion  protested  "against  evidence 
being  introduced  on  all  or  any  of  those  issues  which  were  alleged  by 
him  to  be  irrelevant,  immaterial  and  immpertinent  to  the  question  of 
the  qualifications  of  the  respondent,  and  his  right  to  retain  his  seat 
as  United  States  Senator,  from  the  State  of  Utah,"  pages  31,  39,  Vol. 
1  Smoot  Investigation. 

SENATOR   SMOOT    DID    NOT    MAINTAIN    HIS    CONSTITU- 
TIONAL RIGHTS. 

If  Senator  Smoot  had  stood  squarely  upon  his  legal  rights  the 
record  would  have  been  very  different  from  what  it  is  at  present.  In 
submitting  his  proof  to  meet  the  case,  as  presented  by  the  protestants 

11 


the  Senator,  as  we  contend,  abandoned  in  part,  the  position  which  he 
had  taken  by  his  answer,  viz. :  as  to  the  irrelevancy  of  various  matters 
referred  to  in  the  protest.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Senator  Smoot 
was  cognizant  of  his  legal  rights  in  the  premises.  It  cannot  consist- 
ently be  assumed  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the  Senate  had 
no  authority  to  put  him  on  trial  for  his  religious  belief,  or  opinion, 
nor  to  make  any  "religious  test,"  of  his  right  or  qualification  to  hold 
office.  If  the  Senator  himself  was  not  fully  aware  of  his  rights,  he 
must  in  any  event,  have  been  advised  of  the  same,  for  he  had  eminent 
legal  advisers  to  counsel  him. 

THE  THEORY  OF  SENATOR  SMOOTHS  DEFENSE.     PROOF 
PRESENTED  BY  HIM  VOLUNTARY  AND   UNNECES- 
SARY.   A  WAIVER  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHT. 


He  then  waived  his  legal  right,  and  proceeded  upon  the  theory, 
(as  shown  by  the  evidence)  that  he  must  meet  and  overthrow  the. 
opinion  of  his  fellow  senators,  viz. :  that  he  believed  in  polygamy. 
He  did  not  make  that  admission  in  specific  terms,  but  that  was  the 
theory  of  his  defense,  and  he  presented  proof  to  sustain  it.  In  so  do- 
ing, it  is  contended  that  his  action  was  entirely  voluntary  and  un- 
necessary. It  was  an  evidence  of  his  desire  to  conform  to  public 
opinion,  which,  from  the  standpoint  of  an  apostle,  was  at  the  sacrifice 
of  principle,  and  the  sacrifice  of  consistency.  That  he.  had  the  right 
and  privilege  of  so  doing,  is  here  freely  admitted.  But  the  inconsist- 
ency of  his  position  is  manifest,  when  we  consider  .that  he  was  at  the 
same  time,  upheld  by  his  fellow  churchmen  as  an  apostle,  prophet,  seer 
and  revelator  in  the  church,  which  represented  to  the  world  that  the 
ordinance  of  "plural  marriage"  was  instituted  by  divine  command. 

The  question  of  his  religious  conviction  and  opinion,  his  belief 
in  the  abstract  principle,  of  polygamy  or  plural  marriage,  was  a  mat- 
ter absolutely  irrelevant  and  impertinent  as  to  his  right  to  take  or 
hold  a  seat  in  the  Senate;  so  long  as  he  was  not  found  promulgating 
or  conspiring  to  violate  the  law,  or  commit  some  overt  act  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  the  land. 


SENATOR  SMOOT'S  PROOF  AND   ATTITUDE  INCONSTIT- 
ENT  WITH  HIS  APOSTLESHIP. 

This  point  is  urged  here  (not  because  it  will  cut  any  figure  as  to 
Senator  Smoot's  standing  in  the  world  and  with  people  who  are  not 
members  of  his  church)  but  for  the  reason  that  the  position  which  he 
took,  and  the  proof  which  he  offered,  as  to  his  attitude  upon  that  prin- 
ciple, were  entirely  inconsistent  with  his  religious  profession,  and 

12 


gave  evidence  that  he  was  the  enemy  of  the  principle  which  had  given 
him  birth,  and  that  his  opposition  to  that  principle  was  contrary  to 
his  profession  as  an  apostle  in  the  church. 

Among  other  things,  the.  record  (Senator  Smoot's  answer)  al- 
leges and  shows : 

''Respondent  (Senator  Smoot)  alleges  that  never  at  any  time  did 
he  either  teach,  practice,  advise,  or  encourage  polygamy  or  polyg- 
amous cohabitation." 

This  allegation  bears  out  the  evidence  subsequently  introduced 
to  show  that  he  was  at  all  times  opposed  to  that  doctrine.  This,  of 
course,  the  Senator  had  a  perfect  right  to  do,  and  his  position  in  that 
respect  would  have  been  consistent,  if  the  profession  of  his  faith  had 
been  other  than  what  it  was.  But  it  is  not  consistent  in  view  of  his 
official  position  in  the  church,  to  seek  to  prove  that  he  was  at  all  times 
against  that  principle,  which  as  a  principle,  he  could  not  properly  re- 
pudiate. 

Xo  direct  contention  was  made  that  the  Senator  could  be  expelled, 
merely  for  his  religious  belief.  It  was  stated  in  substance,  in  the 
case  of  United  States  vs.  Reynolds,  That  Congress  could  not  interfere 
with  a  man's  belief,  no  matter  what  he  believed :  that  so  far  as  he 
confined  it  to  a  belief,  Congress  could  not  interfere  with  it:  but  that 
when  in  pursuance  of  that  belief,  he  undertook  to  violate  any  law.  he 
was  outside  of  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  and  must  be  pun- 
ished. 

98  U.  S.  145  page  51. 

There  was  no  occasion  therefore,  for  the  Senator  meeting  the 
question  of  prejudice  and  undertaking  to  prove  to  the  Senate  that  his 
opinion  was,  and  always  had  been  adverse  to  the  principle  so  well  rec- 
ognized in  his  church.  Presumably,  he  met  that  condition  that  he 
might  gain  favor  and  strength  with  his  opponents.  To  sustain  the 
writer's  theory  that  Senator  Smoot  went  beyond  what  he  needed  to 
have  gone,  and  undertook  to  demonstrate,  and  did  successfully  dem- 
onstrate, to  the  Senate,  that  he  had  always  been  the  enemy  of  trie  prin- 
ciple of  "plural  marriage/' 


SENATOR    SMOOT'S    PROOF    THAT    HE    WAS    AGAINST 

PLURAL  MARRIAGE  AND  HAD  BEEN  A  FACTOR 

IN  SUPPRESSING  IT. 

Xote  among  other  things,  what  appears  at  page  67,  Vol.  1,  Smoot 
Investigation,  in  the  remarks  of  Senator  Smoot's  counsel.     This,  of 

13 


course,  must  have  been  done  with  the  approval  of  Senator  Smoot,  or 
otherwise  he  would  have  repudiated  it. 

MR.  VAN  COTT:  "At  the  hearing,  which  was  had  before  the 
Senate  Committee  in  1892,  appeared  Judge  John  W.  Judd,  who  had 
been  appointed  by  President  Cleveland  as  one  of  the  judges  in  the 
Territory  of  Utah.  Judge  Judd  is  in  the  room.  He  was  from  the 
State  of  Tennessee.  Judge  Judd  came  down  here  after  all  the  trouble 
and  fight  in  Utah,  and  made  a  statement  before  the  Committee  in 
regard  to  the  conditions  there,  and  one  statement  which  Judge  Judd 
made  to  the  Committee  on  that  occasion  I  deem  it  pertinent  to  read 
to  the,  Committee,  because  it  shows  just  the  state  of  mind  that  Reed 
Smoot  had  at  that  time,  in  1892.  Judge  Judd  on  page  41  of 

this  Senate  Document,  said: 


*  *  *  -phe  yOUnger  people  would  come  to  me  in  my  room  and 
talked  to  me  about  it.  I  could  give  names  and  incidents  of  Mormons 
high  in  life,  some  of  whom  the  chairman  of  this  committee  is  ac- 
quainted with  who  came  to  me  and  urged  me  saying  :  'Judge  for  God's 
sake  break  this  thing  up  !  We  have  had  enough  trouble  ;  we  have  had 
all  we  can  possibly  stand  of  it.  We  have  had  one.  right  after  another 
taken  from  us.  We  have  been  put  in  an  awkward  attitude  before  our 
fellow  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  for  God's  sake  break  it  up/ 
Others  said  to  me,  notably  Reed  Smoot,  son  of  the  president  of  a 
stake,  and  the  Republican  candidate  for  Mayor,  and  himself  a  product 
of  a  polygamous  marriage  :  'Judge,  we  cannot  stand  this  thing  and  we 
will  not  stand  it;  it  must  be  settled.'  And  I  know  whereof  I  affirm 
when  I  say  before  this  committee,  that  when  the  Mormon  church 
made  its  declaration  of  the  abandonment  of  polygamy,  it  was  done  as 
much  from  a  force  within  as  from  a  force  without." 

When  that  statementwas  made  Judge  Judd  and  Senator  Smoot 
were  present.  Evidently  it  was  the  truth. 

One  of  our  criticisms  of  Senator  Smoot,  is  that  by  the  theory  of 
his  defense  and  the  evidence  he  introduced,  he  broadened  the.  investi- 
gation to  an  improper  extent,  and  inferentially  at  least,  thereby  ad- 
mitted the  right  of  the  Senate  to  put  him  on  trial  for  a  question  of 
conscience  and  a  matter  of  religious  opinion;  and  in  his  effort  and 
desire  to  prove  that  he  was  and  had  been  an  opponent  of  polygamy, 
he  dragged  into  the  investigation  matters  which  were  irrelevant  and 
ought  never  to  have  been  brought  into  it. 

It  was  clear  from  the  evidence  he  introduced  that  he  sought  at 
all  times  to  show  that  he  had  at  least  been  a  secret  opponent,  if  not 
an  open  foe,  against  the  doctrine  of  polygamy;  and  had  not  believed 
in  it.  This  opposition  might  have  been  perfectly  consistent  in  some 
persons,  but  certainly  it  was  not  consistent  in  one  who  stands  before 
his  church  and  all  the.  world  as  a  "special  witness'  of  the  divinity  of 

14 


the  doctrines  of  his  church  and  as  one  holding  the  apostleship,  and  as 
a  prophet,  seer  and  revelator. 

Church  people,  generally  without  a  question,  believed  that  Sen- 
ator Smoot,  (or  Apostle  Smoot)  was  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  of 
"plural  marriage,"  as  formerly  taught  by  the  church  of  which  he  was 
and  still  is  a  member.  Senator  Smoot,  however,  seems  to  have  made 
a  very  different  impression  upon  many  of  his  "non-Mormon"  friends. 
For  example,  Mr.  Whitecotton,  a  non-Mormon  friend  of  Senator 
Smoot,  testified  as  follows,  referring  to  the  Senator. 

MR.  VAN  COTT:  "Speaking  of  the  other  heresies  that  Mr. 
Smoot  had,  what  was  the  general  understanding  in  the  community 
in  Provo  about  any  heresy  that  Mr.  Smoot  had  as  being  opposed  to 
the  practice  of  polygamy  in  those  early  days? 

MR.  WHITECOTTON:     He  was  a  heretic  on  that  too. 
MR.  VAN  COTT:     He  was  opposed  to  polygamy? 

MR.  WHITECOTTON:  He  was  opposed  to  polygamy.  He 
was  understood  so  to  be.  He  was  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  young 
men  in  Utah  who  were  to  redeem  Israel."  Vol.  11,  Page  680,  Smoot 
Investigation. 

*  *     *     "MR.  VAN  COTT :     Outside  of  a  few  men  who  may 
be  in  the  American  party,  I  will  ask  you  what  is  the  general  opinion 
among  gentiles,  as  to  whether  Reed  Smoot,  or  men  like  Reed  Smoot, 
who  are  prominent  in  the  church,  prominent  in  politics,  who  are  op- 
posed to  polygamy  and  in  favor  of  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  should 
be  encouraged  or  not? 

MR.  WHITECOTTON :  I  should  say  the  best  answer  I  could 
give  to  that  question  would  be  Mr.  Smoot's  election.  I  do  not  know 
how  better  to  express  it."  Page  684,  Vol.  11. 

*  *     *     "MR.  WHITECOTTON:     I  never  heard  Mr.  Smoot 
expressly  say  what  he  thought  of  any  particular  case  of  plural  mar- 
riage, but  I  have  understood  ever  since  I  have  known  him  that  he 
was  very  much  opposed  to  polygamy,  and  as  bearing  on  that,  I  have 
here  an  extract  from  a  statement — it  is  in  the  official  record  made  by 
the  Hon.  John  W.  Judd,  who  wras  United  State  Judge  out  there  in 
territorial  days: 

MR.  TAYLER:    That  is  in  the  testimony  in  the  case  already." 
Page  688.     (This  was  the  statement  referred  to  by  Mr.  Van  Cott) : 

Speaking  of  Senator  Smoot's  position  as  an  apostle,  the  following 
occurred: 

15 


:::  *  *  MR.  TAYLER:  "Do  you  understand  that  he  is  chosen 
by  revelation  and  inspiration? 

MR.  WHITECOTTOX  :  Xo  sir,  I  don't  know  anything-  about 
that. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Do  you  understand  that  he  is  a  living  oracle 
of  God? 

.MR.  WHITECOTTON:  Xo,  he  wasn't  to  me. 

MR.  TAYLER:     Oh  no,  no,  no!  you  are  his  counsel? 

MR.  WHITECOTTON:  He  takes  my  advise  sometimes. 

MR.  WORTHIXGTOIN:  The  witness  is  the  oracle? 

MR.  WHITECOTTOX:  I  don't  know  anything  about  that.  I 
don't  know  anything  about  the  importance  that  the  Mormons  even 
attach  to  the  choosing-  of  a.n  apostle.  It  would  be  hard  for  us  in 
Provo,  who  know  Mr.  Smoot  so  intimately,  to  think  of  him  as  a  man 
who  got  revelations.  I  can  scarcely  credit  that. 

MR.  TAYLER:  Exactly,  but  you  have  no  doubt  at  all  that  it 
'is  the  view  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Mormon  church,  that  an  apostle 
is  a  prophet,  seer,  and  revelator,  have  you? 

MR.  WHITECOTTON:  In  matters  pertaining  to  religion,  I 
think  that  is  accepted  as  a  settled  article  of  faith.'7  Page  691. 

The  above  shows,  that  while  Senator  Smoot,'  had  been  successful 
in  making  an  impression  upon  the  minds  of  non-Mormons  that  he 
was  against  the  doctrine  of  polygamy,  that  he  had  also  left  such  an 
impression  that  it  was  hard  for  them  to  accept  him  as  a  prophet  or 
revelator,  although  his  people  held  him  up  as  such. 

Again  at  page  831,  Judge  Miner  testified  as  follows:  with  ref- 
ence  to  Sefiator  Smoot: 

MR.  VAN  COTT :  "When  he  became  a  senatorial  candidate 
was  he.  prominent  or  not,  for  that  position? 

MR.  MINER:     He  was. 

MR.  VAN  COTT :  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  reputation 
he  bore  in  those  early  days  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  polygamv? 

MR.  MINER:     Yes  sir. 

MR.  VAN  COTT:     What  was  it? 

16 


MR.  MIXER:  My  deputies  were,  deputies  for  that  district,  which 
included  Mr.  Smoot's,  residence — that  is,  Utah  County,  and  those  depu- 
ties during  the  year  1890  from  July  on,  were  over  the  entire  district, 
and  before  I  personally  became  acquainted  with  Mr.  Smoot — during 
the  time  of  those  prosecutions,  or  about  the  time  of  the  manifesto, 
they  reported  to  me,  and  I  obtained  from  that  reputation,  and  from 
others  in  speaking  of  him,  that  he  was  strongly  in  favor  of  the  en- 
forcement— that  is,  the  people  should  obey  the  law.  He  was  against 
the  practice  of  polygamy.  They  reported  him  as  the  coming  young 
man  of  the  state." 


IMPRESSION   MADE  BY   SENATOR   SMOOT   UPON   MINDS 
OF  NON-MORMONS,  IN  REGARD  TO  HIS  OPPOSI- 
TION TO  PLURAL  MARRIAGE.  DISCUS- 
SION IN  THE  SENATE. 

Passing  over  the  testimony,  (for  we  have  only  opportunity  to 
briefly  touch  upon  it)  let  us  look  to  the  impression  made  by  it  upon 
the  minds  of  Senators,  who  discussed  it,  principally  as  friends  of  Sen- 
ator Smoot,  and  who  were  opposed  to  his  expulsion  from  the  Senate. 

Excerpts  From  Addresses  of  Senator  Smoot  and  Others  Upon  the 
Floor  of  the  Senate,  February,  1907. 

Senator  Smoot  addressed  the  Senate,  and  among  other  things 
said: 

"I  am  not  a  polygamist.  I  deem  it  proper  to  further 

state,  that  I  have  never  taught  polygamy."     Part  IV  Vol.  41,  page 
3268  Congressional  Record. 

He  might  also  have  consistently  added  that:  "I  have  shown 
you  by  the  evidence  that  I  have  always  been  and  am  now  opposed  to 
that  doctrine  in  theory  and  principle,  as  well  as  in  practice.'' 

At  page  3272  .of  the  Record,  Senator  Dillingham,  among  other 
things,  quoted  the  remarks  of  Judge  Judd,  with  reference  to  what 
Reed  Smoot  had  said  some  years  previously  to  him. 

Mr.  judd  said : 

''The  younger  people  would  come  to  me  in  my  room  in  private 
and  talk  to  me  about  it.  I  could  give  the  names  and  incidents  of 
Mormons  high  in  life,  some  of  whom  the  chairman  of  this  committee 
is  acquainted  with,  who  came  to  me  and  urged  me  saying:  'Judge, 
for  God's  sake  break  this  thing  up!  We  have  had  enough  trouble!' 
Others  said  to  me,  notably  Reed  Smoot,  son  of  the.  pres- 

17 


ident  of  the  stake,  and  the  Republican  candidate  for  Mayor,  and  him- 
self the  product  of  a  polygamous  marriage :  'Judge,  we  cannot  stand 
this  thing,  and  we  will  not  stand  it.  It  must  be  settled/  And  I 
know  whereof  I  affirm,  when  I  say  to  this  committee  that  when  the 
Mormon  church  made  its  declaration  of  the  abandonment  of  polyamy, 
it  was  done  as  much  from  a  force  within  as  from  a  force  without." 

Senator  Sutherland  said: 

"The  statement  which  the  Senator  is  reading  was  made  by  Judge 
Judd,  I  understand  some  fifteen  years  ago,  when  Senator  Smoot  was 
a  young  man." 

MR.  DILLINGHAM:     "It  was  made  in  1892,  fifteen  years  ago." 
At  page.  937,  Vol.  41  Congressional  Record,  Senator  Hopkins  said: 

"I  listened,  Mr.  President,  with  a  great  deal  of  interest  to  the 
eloquent  denunciation  of  the  crime  of  polygamy  by  Mr.  Burrows,  the 
senior  Senator  from  Michigan,  in  his  speech  here,  the  other  day,  and 
I  sympathize  with  him  fully  in  his  arraignment  of  polygamy  and 
polygamous  cohabitation.  I  think  it  is  a  relic  of  a  barbarous  age, 
and  as  such  I  denounce  it.  It  is  the  destroyer  of  the  ideal  American 
home  life  and  the  corrupter  of  the  morals  of  those  who  practice  it." 

Again  at  page  938,  Vol.  41,  Congressional  Record,  Senator  Hop- 
kins said: 

"Reed  Smoot,  is  an  apostle  of  this  higher  and  better  Mormonism. 
He  stands  for  the  sacred  things  in  the  church  and  against  polygamy 
and  all  the  kindred  vices  connected  with  that  loathsome  practice. 
In  his  position,  as.  a  member  of  the  church  and  as  an  apostle  and 
preacher  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  he  has  done  more  to  stamp 
out  this  foul  blot  upon  the  civilization  of  Utah,  and  the  other  ter- 
ritories where  plygamy  has  been  practiced  than  any  other  thousand 
men  outside  of  the  church." 

Thus  Senator  Smoot  stood  before  the  Senate  and  the  world,  and 
heard,  and  by  his  silent  acquiescence,  endorsed  the  representations 
made  by  his  advocates  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  that  he  was  the 
enemy  of  plural  marriage,  that  he  had  done  more  "to  stamp  out  this 
foul  blot  upon  the  civilization  of  Utah  ,  than  any  thousand 

men  outside  of  the  church." 

Upon  the  other  hand,  he  accepts,  and  holds  unblushingly  the  of- 
fice of  an  apostle,  prophet,  seer  and  revelator,  in  the  church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  in  which  he  stands  as  a  "Special  Wit- 
ness," for  the.  divinity  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church. 

18 


Can  inconsistency  reach  a  higher  pitch? 
At  page  3281  Senator  Dillingham  said: 

"Xow,  I  was  saying,  for  I  was  about  to  close,  it  seems  a  strange 
thing  to  me,  in  the  light  of  the.  progress  that  has  been  made  by  the 
Mormon  people  since  1890,  that  the  man  who  back  of  that  time  was 
laying  the  foundation  of  this  progress,  co-operating  with  the  author- 
ities of  the  United  States  in  bringing  to  an  end  a  pernicious  system, 
who  has  always  stood  for  law  and  order,  whose  life,  has  been  so  pure 
and  upright  that  among  all  the  witnesses  testifying  in  this  case  not 
one  has  brought  a  charge  against  him  either  in  his  business  or  social 
life." 

At  page  3409  Senator  Beveridge  said : 

"And,  Mr.  President,  the  country  has  been  misinformed.  The 
average  man  and  woma  nhas  been  told  for  three  long  years  that  Reed 
Smoot  is  a  criminal,  guilty  of  a  disgusting  and  filthy  crime — a  crime 
abhorrent  to  our  face  and  destructive  of  civilization  *  *  *  The 
country  has  been  told  that  this  man  is  a  polygamist.  That  is  the 
charge  on  which  he  has  been  tried  before  the  bar  of  American  public 
opinion;  that  is  the  charge  upon  which  he  has  been  convicted  by  the 
millions;  and  the  charge  that  has  injured  him  as  deeply  as  Dreyfus 
was  injured. 

"The  evidence  shows  and  it  is  finally  admitted,  that  this  accused 
Senator  is  not  a  polygamist — the  word  is  too  full  to  utter,  except  on 
compulsion,  never  was  that  base  thing,  and  that  his  home  life  is  ideal 
in  purity. 

"Not  only  is  this  true,  but  the  evidence  shows,  that  from  the 
first,  Reed  Smoot  has  been  the  leader  of  the  younger,  wiser  and  more 
modern  element  of  his  church,  that  oppose  this  insult  to  marriage. 

"Yet  the  American  people  believe  this  Senator  is  a  practicer  of 
this  horrible  shame.  How  that  impression  has  been  circulated  it  is 
not  necessary,  as  it  would  not  be  pleasant  to  describe.  But  the  be- 
lief that  he  is  such  a  monster  is  general  among  the  masses  and  held 
by  most  of  the  reading  public." 

At  page  3410  Senator  Beveridge  said : 

"Scores  of  witnesses  have  testified  like.  Dr.  Buckley,  the  great 
Methodist  editor,  and  Mrs.  Coulter,  the  accomplished  American  wo- 
men. Yet  all  the  while  the  country  heard  only  the  foul  word  "polyg- 
amy !"  Men  testified  that  Senator  Smoot  was  active  against  that  in- 
famy, not  recently  only,  but  for  years.  In  1892,  Judge  Judd  of  Ten- 
nessee; a  gentile  appointed  by  President  Cleveland  as  Territorial 
Judge,  of  Utah,  before  the  Committee  of  Territories,  of  the  Senate, 

19 


testified  that  the  younger  Mormons  were  active  against  polygamy,  and 
that  their  leader  was  Reed  Smoot. 

"This,  Mr.  President,  was-  fourteen  years  ago.  Certainly  Mr. 
Smoot,  fourteen  years  ago,  had  not  corrupted  a  United  States'  Judge 
into  telling  before  the  Senate  a  falsehood.  After  describing  at  length 
— my  time  does  not  permit  me  to  quote — the  movement  of  the  younger 
Mormons'  to  end  this  curse, — others  said  to  me — listen,  Senators,  no- 
tably Reed  Smoot,  son  of  the  president  of  a  stake,  and  the  Republican 
candidate  for  Mayor,  himself  the.  product  of  a  polygamous  marriage, 
'Judge,  we  cannot  stand  this  thing,  and  we  will  not  stand  this  thing. 
It  has  got  to  be  settled.' ' 

At  page  3415,  Senator  Foraker  said,  speaking  of  Mr.  Smoot: 

"Hs  is  so  good  a  man  that  I  sometimes  almost  doubt  him.  He 
seems  to  have  no  vices  whatever.  He  seems  to  have  no  vices  what- 
ever. He  does  not  drink  or  chew,  or  smoke,  or  swear,  and  he  is  not 
a  polygamist;  but  on  the  contrary,  Mr.  President,  in  very  early  youth, 
as  the  testimony  read  by  the  Senator  from  Indiana  a  few  moments 
ago  shows,  he  was  distinguished  in  the  Mormon  church  for  his  op- 
position to  plural  marriages.  In  early  youth,  although  the  son  of 
a  plural  wife  he  raised  his  voice  against  the  continuance  of  polyg- 
amous marriages  in  the  Mormon  church ;  and  from  that  day  until 
this,  has  stood  the  opponent  of  that  idea.  It  is  not  on  that  ground, 
then,  that  we.  can  expel  him,  and  of  course,  we  cannot  expel  him  for 
a.  mere  belief." 

At  page  3417,  Senator  Bacon,  said  , referring  to  Senator  Smoot : 

"The  fact,  that  he  is  a  Mormon  and  believes  in  the  tenets  and 
dogmas  of  the  Mormon  church,  will  not  in  my  opinion,  justify  his 
exclusion  from  the.  Senate.  It  would  be  an  extremely  dangerous 
precedent  to  exclude  a  Senator  because  of  his  religious  or  political 
belief,  however,  erroneous  we  may  believe  that  belief  to  be." 

The  foregoing  quotations  are  made  from  the  record  to  sustain 
the  point,  as  it  clearly  appears,  that  the  theory  upon  which  Senator 
Smoot  conducted  his  defense,  was  that  he  intended  to  introduce  and 
did  introduce,  such  evidence'  as  would  convince  the  Senate  that  he 
was  an  unbliever  in  the  doctrine  of  plural  marriage,  in  principle, 
and  as  a  matter  of  religious  conviction ;  that  he  had  been  at  all  times 
an  enemy  to  that  doctrine. 

The  statements  made,  by  Senator  Hopkins,  Dillingham,  Beveridge 
and  others,  show  that  Senator  Smoot  accomplished  that  purpose.  It 
is  safe  to  say,  that  in  convincing  the  Senate  upon  that  point  he  has 
also  convinced  the  majority  of  the  people  of  his  own  church  upon  the 
point. 

20 


EVIDENCE   INDICATES    SENATOR'S    DESIRE    FOR  ,SENA- 

TORSHIP,    IS    GREATER    THAN    HIS    LOVE    FOR 

APOSTLESHIP. 

The  view  of  the  writer  here  expressed  is  to  show  that  Senator 
Smoot  could  not  consistently  repudiate  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine 
of  "plural  marriage,"  as  a  matter  of  religious  conviction  only,  and  at 
the  same  time  consistently  stand  in  the  office  of  an  apostle,  prophet, 
seer  and  re.velator  to  his  church.  The  two  positions  are  altogether 
antagonistic  and  out  of  harmony.  They  cannot  be  reconciled. 

By  the  evidence  and  the  record,  the  only  fair  deduction  is,  that 
Senator  Smoot  has  shown  that  his  love  and  desire  for  the  senator- 
ship,  were  greater  than  his  love  for  the  apostleship.  If  that  is  true,  as 
it  appears  to  be,  then  he  ought  to  resign  his  apostleship,  or  otherwise, 
the  senatorsip. 


There  is  another  reason  why  he  ought  to  resign  either  one  office 
or  the  other.  He  cannot  properly  attend  to  the  duties  of  the  two 
offices  at  the  same  time.  These  two  offices  are  too  big  for  one  man 
at  the  same  time.  If  one  person  holds  the  two  offices,  the  duties  of 
one  or  the  other  must  go  unfulfilled.  There  is  no  escape  from  that 
conclusion.  The  duties  and  responsibilities  of  each  and  both  of  these 
offices  are  constantly  increasing.  It  will  not  always  be  as  it  is  at 
present.  There  must  and  will  come  a  change  in  this  respect. 

There  are  hundreds  of  young  and  middle  aged  men  in  Utah  who 
could  impart  equal,  if  not  greater  dignity  and  correctness  to  the  great 
office  of  Senator,  than  the  present  senior  Senator  from  Utah.  Many 
of  our  citizens  are  as  well  and  better  equipped  by  natural  endow- 
ments, by  education,  both  legal  and  otherwise,  by  integrity  to  prin- 
ciple, and  patriotism,  than  is  Senator  Smoot.  We  have  many  men 
qualified  for  that  office  who  differ  from  Senator  Smoot  in  this,  that 
their  patriotism  stands  higher  than  party  spirit: 

While  it  is  not  intended  to  discount  the  business  ability  and  in- 
dustry of  our  senior  Senator,  it  should  be  understood  that  the  honors 
which  have  come  to  Utah  and  its  Congressional  representatives,  have 
not  been  due  to  any  great  ability  of  the  senior  Senator,  but  rather 
because  our  Senators  and  Congressmen  represent  the  people  of  a 
great,  rapidly-growing  and  important  state  in  the  union.  Equal  hon- 
ors, and  perhaps  greater,  would  have  come  to  other  persons  as  our 
representatives  in  that  capacity.  The.  inconsistency  of  Senator  Smoot 
from  a  religious  standpoint  is  not  the  only  point  upon  which  his 
record  is  vulnerable.  It  is  equally  objectionable  from  the  standpoint 
of  a  citizen. 

21 


FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  A  CITIZEN— SENATOR  SMOOT 

UNNECESSARILY  SURRENDERED  A  FUNDAMENTAL 

CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHT. 


After  Reed  Smoot  was  elected  to  the  Senate,  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  Utah,  desired  to  see  him  take 
his  seat  in  that  body,  (although  many  of  them  had  not  voted  for  him), 
for  the  reason  that  he  was  lawfully  elected.  But  they  did  expect 
of  him,  that  he  would  stand  firmly  upon  his  Constitutional  rights. 
Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  who  has  a  proper  conception  of 
the  fundamental  rights  of  citizenship,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Federal 
Constitution,  is  desirous  of  seeing  those  rights  maintained,  for  the 
benefit  and  protection  of  every  citizen  in  this  great  and  magnificent 
government. 

The  fundamental  rights  of  the  citizen,  as  vouchsafed  by  the  Con- 
stitution, may  not  be  invaded,  nor  voluntarily  surrendered  with  im- 
punity. The.  surrender  or  invasion  of  any  Constitutional  right  of 
any  citizen,  is  a  matter  of  concern  to  every  other  citizen  of  this  gov- 
ernment. 


The  clamor  of  people  for  the  expulsion  of  Senator  Smoot  from 
the  Senate,  or  the  protest  against  his  being  seated  in  that  body,  upon 
the  grounds,  that  he  believed  in  polygamy,  (and  probably  there  were 
some  such  fanatical  and  overzealous  people  among  his  opponents  and 
protestants),  was  altogether  an  untenable,  illogical  and  illegal  con- 
tention. It  is  possible  also  that  some  Senators  may  have  indulged 
that  view. 


Let  us  suppose  for  the  purpose  of  illustration,  that  Senator  Smoot 
had  broadly  admitted  that  he  was  a  believer  in  the  doctrine 
of  "polygamy"  or  "plural  marriage,"  as  a  religious  tenet  of  his  faith, 
but  that  he  had  never  entered  into  the  practice  of  it,  and  never  ad- 
vised others  to  do  so,  for  the  reason  that  the.  Senate  made  it  a  penal 
offense.  Would  he,  under  such  circumstances,  be  liable  to  expulsion 
from  the  Senate?  It  is  confidentially  submitted  that  he  would  not, 
and  if  not,  then  why  not?  Because  it  would  be  a  "religious  test," 
such  as  is  forbidden  by  .the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  or 
stating  it  a  little  differently,  an  exclusion  or  expulsion  for  a  religious 
conviction  or  matter  of  opinion.  Hence,  if  under  those  circumstances, 
for  a  religious  opinion,  he.  could  be  excluded  or  expelled  today,  then 
tomorrow  some  other  test  might  be  proposed,  that  would,  upon  sim- 
ilar grounds,  exclude  a  Catholic,  a  Protestant,  an  Athiest,  or  an  Ag- 
nostic, and  there  would  be  no  end  of  controversy  upon  such  grounds. 

It   may   be   repeated   therefore,   that    Senator   Smoot's   proposed 

9? 


allegations  or  proof  that  he  never  did  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  polyg- 
amy, were  voluntary  and  unnecessary.  Evidently,  his  counsel  was  of 
the.  same  opinion,  for,  while  Senator  Smoot  was  being  examined  upon 
the  witness  stand,  his  counsel,  Air.  Worthington,  (after  asking  him 
if  he  had  "advised  or  promulgated  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  since  he 
was  an  apostle"  said,  "I  will  not  ask  you  as  to  your  belief  in  the  doc- 
trine, because  in  my  judgment,  that  is  a  matter  as  to  which  nobody 
has  the  right  to  inquire."  Page  189,  Vol.  3,  Reed  Smoot  Investiga- 
tion. 

It  was  all  sufficient  for  him  to  show  he  had  never  committed  any 
overt  act  of  that  nature,  nor  violated  the  law,  and  rested  upon  his 
Constitutional  rights  in  the  premises.  It  is  safe  to  say,  that  the  best 
and  highest  thought  of  the  Senate  (and  of  the  nation)  and  the  wisest 
Constitutional  lawyers  of  that  body,  would  have,  stood  patriotically 
behind  him.  They  could  not  consistently  have  done  otherwise,  even 
though  they  held  his  religious  opinions  and  convictions  in  derision. 

Though  religious  prejudice  and  excitement  may  run  high,  the 
American  people  have  not  come  to  a  state  of  mind,  nor  is  it  believable, 
that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  exclude  or  expel  any  Sen- 
ator, lawfully  elected,  under  such  conditions. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  it  is  contended,  that  aside  from  all  re- 
ligious convictions  or  prejudice,  that  the  defense  of  Senator  Smoot 
was  objectionable,  from  the  standpoint  of  a  citizen,  in  admitting,  as 
he  impliedly  did,  (by  the  evidence  he  introduced)  the  right  of  the 
Senate  to  put  him  on  trial  for  his  belief,  and  to  exclude  or  expel  him 
for  a  matter  of  religious  opinion. 


.SENATOR  SMOOT'S  GREAT  OPPORTUNITY.    HIS  FAILURE 
TO  MEASURE  UP  TO  THE  STANDARD. 

The  opportunity  presented  before  Senator  Smoot,  to  stand  boldly 
for  and  vindicate  a  great  Constittuional  principle,  viz. :  freedom  of 
religious  opinion,  and  freedom  from  any  religious  test,  was  the  great- 
est opportunity  ever  presented  to  any  Congressman  or  Senator  from 
the  State  of  Utah,  and  upon  that  point  Senator  Smoot  made  the  worst 
failure.  Instead  of  showing  the  characteristics  of  the  patriot  and 
statesman,  he  played  the  part  of  a  politician.  He  surrendered  a  great 
Constitutional  principle  to  confer  mto  the  demands  of  popular  preju- 
dice, and  proved  that  he  was  willing  to  sacrifice  a  Constitutional 
right,  where  he  was  tempted  by  the  lust  of  office.  What  supineness 
he  manifested ! 

Suppose,  for  illustration,  he  had  stood  up,  as  hundreds  of  the 
native  sons  of  Utah  would  have  done  under  similar  circumstances, 
and  said,  in  substance  and  effect,  to  the  Senate :  "My  religious  opin- 

23 


ions  are  my  own.  They  are  of  no  concern  to  the  Senate,  I  claim 
the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Federal  Constitution  for  freedom  of  con- 
science, freedom  of  speech,  and  that  no  religious  test  shall  be  made 
of  my  right  or  qualification  to  hold  office  under  the  United  States." 
By  so  doing,  he  would  have  won  the  respect  of  the  strongest  minds 
in  the  senate  and  in  the  nation ;  and  doubtless  their  support  upon  a 
final  vote  in  the  controversy.  He  would  have  forced  the  respect  even 
of  his  opponents,  some  of  whom  admitted  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate, 
that  he  could  neither  be  excluded  nor  expelled  for  a  matter  of  mere 
opinion  or  belief.  Page  3415,  Vol.  41,  Cong.  Record. 

It  is  contended,  therefore,  that  aside  from  all  religious  senti- 
ment, Senator  Smoot's  attitude  was  cowardly  and  unstatesmanlike, 
and  a  proper  subject  of  criticism  by  any  citizen  who  stands  for  the. 
rights  of  religious  liberty  and  freedom  of  conscience,  as  guaranteed 
under  the  Federal  Constitution.  These  doctrines  are  known  and  rec- 
ognized to  be  among  the  guaranteed  rights  under  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. 

The  Senator,  by  his  compromising  and  vacillating  attitude,  dem- 
onstrated that  he  was  willing  to  sacrifice  a  Constitutional  right  to 
minister  to  his  vaulting  ambition  for  office. 


THE  SENATOR'S  APOLOGY  FOR  TAKING  HIS  ENDOW- 
MENTS. 


Senator  Smoot  was  charged  with  having  received  the  church 
ordinance,  known  as  the  "endowments,"  and  being  called  upon  by 
the  committee  to  explain  his  attitude  upon  that  point,  he  pled  his 
youth,  viz. :  that  he  was  about  eighteen  years  of  age,  and  unloaded 
the  burden  of  his  conduct  upon  his  father,  in  the  following  apologetic 
statement. 


Among  other  things,  Mr.  Smoot  testified : 

"Father  asked  me  if  I  would  go  to  the  Endowment  house  and 
take  my  endowments.  I  told  him  I  did  not  particularly  care  about 
it.  He  stated  to  me  that  it  certainly  would  not  hurt  me,  if  it  did 
not  do  me"  any  good,  and  that  as  my  father,  he  would  very  much  like 
to  have  me  take  the  'endowments'  before  I  crossed  the  water  or  went 
away  from  the  United  States."  Page  183,  Vol.  3,  Inv.  of  Reed 
Smoot. 


In  proving  to  the  Senate  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  "plural  marriage,"  while  holding  the  high  and  important  office  of 

24 


an  apostle  in  the  church,  the  Senator  thereby  demonstrated  (to  his 
own  people  and  to  the  world)  his  utter  inconsistency  in  assuming  to 
stand  for  the  divinity  of  that  principle  in  his  own  church,  and  re- 
pudiating it  to  the  world.  Consistency  is  a  jewel!  Is  it  consistent 
that  an  apostle  in  the  church  should  occupy  this  dual  relation?  He 
ought  to  elect  what  ground  he  proposes  to  stand  upon. 


THE    SENATOR'S   SILENCE  WHILE  FALSE   AND   MALICI- 
OUS CHARGES  WERE  MADE  AGAINST  HIS  CONSTITU- 
ENTS  UPON   THE   FLOOR   OF  THE  SENATE.     HIS 
ACQUIESCENCE  AND  ACCEPTANCE  OF  BENE- 
FITS  RESULTING  THEREFROM. 

Another  criticisim  for  the  Senator  is  upon  the  point  of  cold- 
blooded indifference  and  inconsistency,  as  shown  in  his  quiet  ac- 
quiescence in  the  vile  epithets  and  charges  so  freely  hurled  at  the 
ordinance  of  "plural  marriage/'  which  gave  the  Senator  a  being  and 
honorable  introduction  into  the  world.  The  foul  charges  made  against 
that  branch  of  the  marriage  ordinance  in  his  church  were : 

"That  it  was  a  disgusting  and  filthy  crime.  Abhorrent  to  our  race. 
Destructive  of  civilization.  Something  too  foul  to  be  uttered,  except 
upon  compulsion.  That  it  was  a  great  infamy,  a  horrible  shame,"  etc. 

These  charges  were  made  by  some  of  the  Senator's  advocates 
and  friends.  He  became  a  beneficiary,  in  a  way  at  least,  of  these  base 
charges,  because,  the  Senators  who  made  them  upon  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  declared  that  Senator  Smoot,  for  years 
previously,  had  been  laying  the  foundation  for  the  destruction  of 
that  so-called  "pernicious  system."  "That  Senator  Smoot  was  active 
against  that  infamy,  not  recently  only,  but  for  years." 

All  these  foul  charges  were  made  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
in  the  presence  of  Senator  Smoot  and  for  his  benefit.  He  sat  supinely 
by  and  acquiesced,  by  his  silence,  in  all  of  the  above  charges,  and 
more.  And  these  charges  brought  from  him  no  word  of  protest,  of 
denial,  of  palliation,  or  of  .remonstrance.  By  these,  same  men,  in  the 
same  harangue,  Senator  Smoot  was  painted  in  robes  of  spotless  pur- 
ity, because  he  had  convinced  the  Senate,  and  particularly  tnese 
speakers,  (his  advocates)  that  he  had  been  an  enemy,  and  an  oppon- 
ent to  the  so-called  "pernicious  system,"  lo !  these  many  years !  Sen- 
ator Smoot  was  the  product  of  a  system  of  marriage  which  he  did  not 
at  any  time  have  the  courage  or  inclination  to  defend. 

In  so  far  as  Senator  Smoot  was  satisfied  to  quietly  acquiesce  in 
the  foul  charges  of  moral  degradation,  criminality,  and  filthiness 
publicly  hurled  from  the  floor  of  the  senate  against  the  marriage 

25 


ordinance,  which  gave  him  birth,  and  challenged  the  purity  and  chast- 
ity of  his  father  and  mother  and  their  marriage  vow,  and  in  permitting 
their  good  names  to  be  blackened  by  the  voice  of-  calumny  and  ignor- 
ance, I  forbear  to  speak,  and  leave  him  to  answer  at  the  bar  of  his 
own  conscience,  if  such  a  place,  there  be. 

In  so  far  as  he  permitted  such  charges  to  be  wantonly  made 
against  the  people  and  the  church  which  upheld  him  as  apostle, 
prophet,  seer  and  revelator,  and  as  he  by  his  silence,  acquiesced 
therein,  and  became  the  beneficiary  of  those  false  and  infamous 
charges  that  he  might  retain  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  or  win  fame  and 
glory,  and  permitted  such  charges  to  stand  upon  the  record  as  con- 
fessed and  unchallenged  by  him ;  it  is  fitting  that  his  moral  cowardice 
should  be  held  in  resentment  and  derision  by  the  people  for  whom  he 
had  not  the  moral  courage  to  speak  one  word  of  vindication.  That 
his  glory  should  be  written  in  water,  and  that  his  fame  should  perish 
in  empty  air. 

In  all  the  record  of  that  notorious  investigation,  and  in  the  face 
of  all  these  insults,  charges  of  moral  turpitude,  of  degradation,  of 
crime  and  unchastity,  so  made  against  the  people  whom  Senator 
Smoot  represented,  he  found  no  time  or  opportunity  where,  he  could 
offer  words  of  justification  or  even  of  condonation,  sincerity  or  refut- 
ation of  these  monstrous  charges,  so  freely  made  against  them.  As 
the  record  stands,  as  made  by  him  in  part,  and  as  permitted  by  him 
to  stand  unchallenged,  it  is  such  a  record  as  mars  the  face  of  con- 
sistency, and  leaves  behind  it  only  wounds  and  scars.  It  ought  to 
bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  the  Senator's  cheek. 


CONTRAST    BETWEEN    THE    COWARDICE    O'F    SENATOR 

SMOOT,  AND  THE  COURAGE  OF  HONORABLE  H.  E. 

BOOTH,   A    NON-MORMON    IN    DEFENDING 

THE  HONOR  OF  PLURAL  WIFEHOOD 

AND  MOTHERHOOD. 

Unforunately,  for  Mr.  Smoot,  it  remained  for  a  non-Mormon  a 
so-called  gentile,  the  Hon.  Hyrum  E.  Booth,  U.  S.  District  Attorney 
for  Utah,  to  offer  a  contradiction  of  some  of  the  foul  and  unfounded 
charges  made  against  the  class  of  Utah's  people  described  as  "polyg- 
amists,"  and  to  make  some  statements  of  vindication,  in  part,  of 
plural  wifehood  and  Mormon  motherhood,  which  Senator  Smoot  had 
neither  the  inclination  nor  the  courage  to  defend.  Viol.  2,  page  732, 
Reed  Smoot  Investigation,  reads  as  follows : 

SENATOR  DUB'OIS:  "Mr.  Booth,  do  you  not  understand  that 
these  children,  who  are  now  being  born  into  the  world,  in  this  polyg- 

26 


amous  relation,  come,  into  the  world  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God  and 
man? 

MR.  BOOTH :  Well,  they  do  contrary  to  the  laws  of  man.  The 
other  law  is  not  so  well  defined  and  definitely  settled  as  to  enable  me 
to  testify  concerning  it. 

SENATOR  DUBOlIS:  Would  you  take  the  authority  of  Joseph 
Smith,  the  president  of  the  church,  on  that  point,  as  to  whether  it  is 
contrary  to  the  law  of  God? 

MR.  BOOTH :     I  do  know  this,  Senator 

SENATOR  DUBOIS:  Would  you  take  his  authority?  If  you 
are  not  clear  on  that  yourself,  would  Joseph  F.  Smith's  authority  be 
good? 

MR.  BOOTH :  I  do  know  this — that  the  women  who  have  gone 
into  polygamy  have  done  so  from  pure  motives,  believing  it  to  be  the 
law  of  God,  and  these  children  are  born  under  those  conditions. 

SENATOR  DUBOIS:  If  you  are  not  clear  as  to  whether  they 
come  into  the  world  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  would  you  take  Jo- 
seph F.  Smith's  testimony,  and  Francis  M.  Lyman's  testimony,  the 
present  president,  and  the  next  president,  if  he  outlives  Smith,  of  the 
church? 

MR.  WORTHINGTO^T:     Mr.  Booth  is  not  a  Mormon. 

MR.  BOOTH:  I  am  not  a  Mormon.  I  am  not  subject  to  their 
control  in  any  way. 

SENATOR  DUBOIS :  I  ask  that  question — have  you  any  sym- 
pathy for  these  children,  who  are  now  being  born  into  the  world  in 
this  relation? 

MR.  BOOTH:     I  certainly  have! 

SENATOR  DUBOffS:     You  have,  for  the  children? 

MR.  BOOTH  ;•    I  have  for  the  children  and  I  have,  for  the  women. 

MR.  TAYLER:  Is  your  sympathy  for  the  children,  who  are  in 
no  wise  responsible,  equal  to  your  sympathy  for  the  plural  wives? 

MR.  BOOTH :  Well,  that  would  be  a  matter  of  separation  that 
I  could  not  make. 

M'R.  TAYLER:     You  could  not  make  that? 

27 


MR.  BOOTH:     I  do  not  think  so.     My  sympathies  are  for  both. 
Page  741  : 

MR.  BOOTH  :  "I  have  told  you  that  the  women,  so  far  as  they 
are  concerned,  went  into  this  relation  believing  that  it  was  the  law 
of  God,  and  that  they  are  generally  pure  minded  women  — 

.  TAYLER:    I  am  not  talkin    about  the  women. 


AIR.  BOOTH:  —  as  pure  rninded  women  as  exist  on  the 

face  of  the  earth  anywhere  ;  and  so  true  is  that,  that  in  sixteen  years 
residence  in  Salt  Lake  City,  I  cannot  now  recall  a  case  of  infidelity 
on  the  part  of  a  plural  wife  to  her  husband.  It  is  practically  unknown 
in  Utah." 

To  the  credit  of  Mr.  Booth  let  it  be  said  that  he  had  some  con- 
victions as  to  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  wives  and  mothers  re- 
ferred to,  and  that  he  also  had  the  courage  to  state  it,  where  the  Hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Utah,  although  an  apostle  in  the  church,  was 
struck  dumb  with  fear,  or  otherwise  bribed  by  lust  of  office.  What  a 
humiliation  ! 

Lest  the  writer  be  misunderstood,  let  it  be  here  repeated,  that  this 
is  a  criticism  on  the  inconsistency  of  Senator  Smoot  in  assuming  to 
stand  as  an  apostle  and  prophet,  seer  and  revelator  before  his  church, 
and  for  the  divinity  of  its  doctrines,  and  at  the  same  time  proving  thai 
he  was  an  opponent,  either  secretly  or  otherwise,  of  the  doctrine  of 
"plural  marriage."  This  is  not  an  argument  made,  nor  intended  to 
be  made,  in  favor  of  that  ordinance.  It  would  have  been,  entirely 
consistent  (for  example)  in  the  junior  Senator  from  Utah,  to  have 
made  the  proof,  and  to  have  acquiesced  in  all  that  Senator  Smoot  ac- 
quiesced in,  upon  that  investigation,  because  the  junior  Senator  did 
not  make  the  professions  that  Senator  Smoot  made,  nor  stand  before 
the  world  as  an  apostle,  in  the  church. 


SENATOR   SMOOT   NOT   A   JEALOUS   GUARDIAN    OF  THE 
HONOR  OF  HIS  CONSTITUENCY. 

Xo  man  who  is  a  jealous  guardian  of  the  honor  and  good  name 
of  his  parents,  his  people,  or  his  constituency,  occupying  a  position 
similar  to  the  one  occupied  by  Senator  Smoot,  would  have  permitted 
himself  to  take  credit,  or  honor  (?)  (so-called),  or  political  office,  at 
the  sacrifice  of  the  good  name  and  reputation  of  his  parents,  his  peo- 
ple, or  his  constituents.  If  such  a  record  is  justifiable,  or  the  proper 
measure  and  conception  of  either  religious  or  political  integrity,  I 
can  only  say,  with  one  of  old,  "Oh,  my  soul,  come  out  thou  into  their 
secrets,  and  unto  their  assembly  mine  honor  be  not  thou  united." 

28 


RELIGIOUS     CONTROVERSY    DISCOUNTENANCED.      ALL 
MEN  EQUAL  BEFORE  THE  LAW. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  this  criticism  of  Senator 
Smoot's  record  is  not  an  attack  upon  his  religious  belief,  neither  is  it 
an  argument  in  favor  of  his  religion,  nor  any  principle  thereof.  It  is 
not  made  to  introduce  religious  controversy.  On  the  contrary,  all 
such  efforts  in  the,  past  or  present  are  sincerely  deprecated.  As  to 
religion  or  irreligion,  either  as  a  qualification  or  a  disqualification  to 
the  right  to  hold  office,  our  political  institutions  know  no  distinction. 
All  men  are  equal  before  the  law. 

This  article  is  merely  a  discussion  of  part  of  the  Senator's  record, 
to  which  he  invites  attention  as  having  brought  "credit  and  honor  to 
our  state."  This  discussion  is  not  alone  from  the  viewpoint  of  a 
churchman.  It  is  also  from  the  viewpoint  of  a  citizen. 

Senator  Smoot's  Record  Speaks  Two  Ways. 

Senator  Smoot  testified  in  substance,  with  reference  to  the  divin- 
ity of  the  doctrine  of  ''polygamy"  and  "the  reveltion  that  was  given 
to  Joseph  Smith"  that  "he  received  it  from  the.  Lord."  Also,  that  "as 
an  abstract  principle  approved  by  the  Bible  and  permitted  by  the 
Doctrine  and  Covenants  I  believe  it,  but  as  a  practice  against  the 
law  of  my  country  I  do  not/'  Page  210,  Vol.  3,  Smooth  Investiga- 
tion. 

Among  other  things  he  was  asked,  "Mr.  Tayler.  Was  the  law 
commanding  polygamy  a  revelation  from  God?  A.  Mr.  Smoot:  I 
understand  so."  Then  he  amended  his  answer  by  saying  that  he  did 
not  think  there  was  a  revelation  commanding  polygamy,  but  that  the 
revelation  on  the  eternity  of  the  marriage  covenant,  'came  directly 
from  God,'  as  he  understood  it."  Page  253-4,  Vol.  3.  Smoot  In- 
vestigation. 

Thus  the  Senator  testified  and  shows  that  he  has  at  all  times  be- 
lieved in  the  divinity  of  the  revelation  permitting  a  plurality  of  wives, 
that  he  "understood  it  came  directly  from  God."  At  the  same  time 
he  introduces  evidence  to  show  that  he  applied  to  Federal  Judges 
and  officers  of  the  United  States  to  suppress  it,  and  encouraged  the 
prosecution  of  his  people  as  far  back  as  1892.  He  admits  and  takes 
the  benefits  and  credit  before  the  outside,  world,  with  having  "done 
more  to  stamp  out  this  foul  blot  upon  the  civilization  of  Utah,  *  * 
than  any  thousand  men  outside  of  the  church." 

It  is  not  understandable  to  the  common  mind,  by  what  refined 
mental  or  psychological  process  of  reasoning,  or  legerdemain  the 
Senator  justifies  his  dual  position  as  revealed  by  the  Record. 

29 


Can  it  be  possible  that  he  has  been  facing  two  ways? 

Was  his  profession  and  faith  of  one  color  to  his  own  people,  and 
of  another  color  to  those  against  them? 


How  Does  Such  a  Record  Appeal  to  Non-Churchmen? 

How  does  this  record  appeal  to  persons  outside  of  the  Senator's 
church? 

Does  it  look  like  sincerity,  or  fair  dealing  among  honorable  men 
of  any  class? 

Senator  Smoot  says:     "If  my  work  has  not  brought  credit  and 
honor  to  our  state,  I  dcjhot  deserve  to  be  re-elected  as  your  repre- 
sentative in  the  Senate."     The  public  will  finally  render  its  verdict,    J 
and  determine  whether  the  Senator's  "record  on  the  whole  meets  with  * 
their  approval,"  as  suggested  by  him,  and  whether  it  has  brought 
"credit  and  honor  to  our  state,"  or  otherwise. 


What  History  Will  Say  of  the  Senator's  Record  and  Defense. 

Whenever  a  fair  and  impartial  history  shall  be  written  of  the 
proceedings  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  privileges  and  elections 
in  the  case  of  Reed  Smoot,  and  the  truth  is  told  it  must  be  admitted 
that  his  so-called  defense,  or  otherwise  his  failure  to  speak  at  the 
time  when  honor  and  good  conscience  shoul  dhave  impelled  him  to 
speak  in  defense  of  his  constituency,  and  defend  their  good  name  and 
to  honestly  explain  his  own  attitude ;  were  both  inconsistent  and  un- 
justifiable. His  defense  can  only  be  properly  regarded  as  a  con- 
cession of  principle  both  from  the  viewpoint  of  a  churchman  and  from 
the  viewpoint  of  a  non-churchman  and  citizen.  That  when  the  record 
is  squarely  presented  to  the  people  of  Utah,  in  its  true  light  that  they 
should  and  will  repudiate  it. 


30 


I 


Hollinger  Corp. 
pH8.5 


